Cited by 214Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesMemory and Neural Mechanisms

Intolerance of uncertainty: Neural and psychophysiological correlates of the perception of uncertainty as threatening

Tanovic, Ema, Gee, Dylan G., Joormann, Jutta·2018·Clinical Psychology Review

Abstract

Intolerance of uncertainty (IU) reflects the perception of uncertainty as threatening, regardless of the true probability of threat. IU is elevated in various forms of psychopathology, uniquely associated with anxiety and depression symptoms after controlling for related constructs, and prospectively predicts symptoms. Given the ubiquity of uncertainty in daily life and the clinical implications of IU, recent work has begun to investigate the neural and psychophysiological correlates of IU. This review summarizes the existing literature and integrates findings within a mechanistic neural model of responding to uncertainty. IU is associated with heightened reactivity to uncertainty reflected in greater activity of the anterior insula and amygdala, alterations in neural responses to rewards and errors evident in event-related potentials, a mixed pattern of startle responses to uncertain threat, and deficiencies in safety learning indexed by startle and skin conductance responding. These findings provide evidence of disruptions in several domains of responding to uncertainty, threat, and reward associated with IU that may confer risk for the development of psychopathology. Significant attention is devoted to recommendations for future research, including consideration of the complex interplay of IU with emotion regulation, cognitive control, and reward processing.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cpr.2018.01.001

Cites

119 of 119 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 121 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tanovic, E., Gee, D. G., & Joormann, J.
Affiliations
Yale University (US)
Corresponding author
Tanovic, Ema
Venue
Clinical Psychology Review
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-03
Volume
60
Pages
87-99
ISSN
0272-7358 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2782498233
Cited by
214
References
121
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 4
FWCI
2.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
Keywords
intolerance of uncertainty, neural correlates, psychophysiological correlates, anterior insula, amygdala, event-related potentials, startle response, skin conductance, safety learning, reward processing, threat processing, anxiety, depression, emotion regulation, cognitive control
MeSH terms
Anxiety, Brain, Emotions, Fear, Humans, Uncertainty

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review